Brief No: 447
July 2003
ISBN 1 84478 0376
‘BECOMING SEAMLESS’
AN EVALUATION OF SCHOOLS PLUS TEAMS PILOTS PROJECT
Catherine Shaw with Robert Harnett, Rachael Harker, Anita Franklin and Hannah Olle
National Children’s Bureau

Introduction

In 2001 the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) commissioned four voluntary organisations working in partnership to implement a pilot project to test the effectiveness of the team approach in developing Schools Plus activities for schools in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Education Extra as the lead agency, worked closely alongside the Community Education Development Centre (CEDC) to develop and manage the project. The evaluation has been undertaken by the research department of the National Children’s Bureau (NCB). The pilot ran for one school year (September 2001 to July 2002).

Key findings

  • During the pilot year a range of new activities and developments were initiated in each of the six schools under the Schools Plus banner. It is The majority of these are ununlikely that the majority of these wouldto have occurred during this time without the support of the team leader and the limited funding available to the project.
  • All of the schools substantially increased the number and range of contacts with external agencies and initiatives. New study support and Out of School Hours Learning (OoSHL) initiatives were implemented in each school. Some schools elected to focus on pupil participation and in these schools, the constitution, role and activities of school councils were enhanced.
  • Work with parents and family learning initiatives were successfully developed in some schools, although two of the secondary schools in the sample experienced difficulties developing this type of work.
  • The role of the team leader as catalyst was crucial to the project’s success in the six pilot schools. The pilot project demonstrated that twenty or so days input from an experienced outsider over the course of a school year was sufficient to expand the vision of key individuals within each school and ‘kick start’ a programme of Schools Plus activity. The team leader, coming from outside the school, imported fresh energy and a new perspective. Using experienced consultants who had undertaken such a role before meant that confidence and optimism were instilled in the process from the start.
  • Rather than draw upon the pool of national experts recommended by the project coordinator, schools elected to seek out and take advantage of local expertise and support. The majority of schools in the sample formed some kind of Schools Plus project steering group consisting of key school staff and relevant external partners (eg from the LEA, other local authority departments, voluntary organisations and local initiatives).

  • Those schools that appeared to gain the most ‘added value’ from the SPT project are those that already had a strong commitment to Schools Plus ideals, allied to an integrated vision as to how the school could develop in this respect, although they were – at the start of the pilot - unable to see a way forward. This set of conditions provided fertile ground for the project, enabling rapid, and apparently sustainable, progress to be made in a relatively short period of time.
  • In terms of sustainability, the picture we found in January 2003 was mixed, but encouraging on the whole. In three schools the Schools Plus agenda appeared to be going from strength to strength, having acquired an apparently unstoppable momentum of its own. In two others, steady progress continued to be made, and in one school developments had come to something of a standstill.
  • The Schools Plus teams project has been most successful, and developed most rapidly, in schools where there is a clear vision integrating Schools Plus activities seamlessly into the life of the school and the wider community. Strong leadership (from the head or a member of the senior management team) is vital in ensuring that Schools Plus becomes and remains a priority within the school.

Background

The Schools Plus teams pilot project arose from a recommendation in the Schools Plus Policy Action Team (PAT) 11 report published in 2000[1]. PAT 11 considered a number of ways in which schools in disadvantaged areas might develop in order to raise the achievement of their pupils. In particular, two main approaches were advocated – extending the services schools offered to their pupils, and increasing the role of the community in the school and the school in the community. A wide range of possible developments were suggested under these headings, all of which can be seen as complementing or extending the core educational activities of schools.

In recognition that many schools operating in disadvantaged neighbourhoods may experience particular challenges in developing such activities, the PAT 11 report further recommended that “Schools Plus Teams (SPTs) be available to support schools facing most difficulty in developing the ‘plus’ aspect of their school. The SPTs would offer support and guidance, mobilising support from other agencies … and be a conduit for additional resources.” (p11). The DfES pilot project discussed in this paper was implemented as a response to this recommendation.

The stated aim of the Schools Plus teams pilot project was to test the effectiveness of Schools Plus teams in enabling schools to:

  • Develop study support and out of school hours learning (OoSHL) programmes;
  • Engage and work with a wider range of parents, and develop family learning programmes;
  • Develop closer business links;
  • Develop the role of the community within the school;
  • Develop the role of the school within the community;
  • Increase pupil involvement within the school and community.

The project was implemented in six schools in England (two primary and four secondary). The sample was selected to include a broad mix of schools and included schools experiencing both urban and rural deprivation, schools with a high proportion of pupils from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and examples of schools that benefited from, as well as those excluded from, other local initiatives.

Implementation of the project involved the appointment of experienced consultants to act as ‘team leaders’ for each school. The first task of the team leader was to carry out an audit of existing Schools Plus activities within the school. Following this exercise, each school worked with its team leader to draw up an action plan for further developing their Schools Plus work. It was envisaged that additional team members with specific relevant areas of expertise would then be identified and drafted in to create a larger team that would spend the remainder of the school year working to support the school in implementing its Schools Plus action plan. In addition to the human resources available to schools in the form of team leaders and team members, some additional funds were set aside to support planned developments, for which schools were required to submit proposals. Further support for participating schools, LEAs and team leaders was provided by the two project coordinators (from Education Extra and CEDC), who also organised three information-sharing and networking events during the course of the pilot.

Methodology

The overall aim of the evaluation was to consider the effectiveness of the Schools Plus team approach in supporting schools to develop and sustain their Schools Plus activities. Because of the emphasis on sustainability, the timescale for the evaluation extended beyond that of the pilot project itself. Data collection continued until January 2003, some six months after formal inputs from the project to the schools ceased.

The evaluation addressed the following key questions:

i.To what extent was it possible to implement the pilot project as planned in each school?

ii.What was the impact of the project on the development of Schools Plus activities?

iii.To what extent did Schools Plus activities continue to exist and develop beyond the pilot period?

iv.What was the more general impact of the project on schools and pupils?

A qualitative case study approach was adopted, and data was collected from a range of key stakeholders. In all schools this involved conducting semi-structured interviews with the head and other key members of staff, the team leader, and other relevant individuals involved in implementing the project locally (this included LEA officers and other local authority representatives, representatives of partner organisations, and pupils). Formal interviews of this type were conducted at three key points during the project: after the audit and action plan (end of 2001); at the end of the pilot period (July 2002), and in January 2003. The evaluation team was also in regular informal contact with schools and team leaders, and attended local SPT project meetings where possible. Documents were also collected, including background information about the schools, copies of audits and action plans, bids for funding and any other relevant paperwork.

In addition to the six local case studies, the evaluation considered the implementation of the project at national level. Documents were collected and analysed and evaluators attended and observed at all the joint events for team leaders, schools and LEAs. Formal semi-structured interviews were conducted with the project coordinators towards the beginning and again at the end of the pilot period.

Discussion of the findings

The schools in the pilot project were by definition having difficulties in developing the ‘plus’ side of their work. Without some form of support or assistance nothing was likely to change. The SPT pilot project was well-received by all schools, and surpassed expectations in most cases. The role of the team leader was felt to be a critical factor in the project’s success. All the schools were introduced to new ideas, contacts and ways of working by their team leaders.

Impact of the Schools Plus Teams project

Taking a long-term view, probably the most significant feature of the SPT project was its role in extending schools’ external contacts, networks and partnerships. Most of schools’ new links and networks can be directly attributed to the project, and more specifically, to the input of the team leader. In many cases local partners were engaged that the schools had no prior knowledge of. Often these new links provided access - directly or indirectly - to sources of funding for Schools Plus activities. Interestingly, none of the schools acquired new partnerships with businesses as a result of the project.

The pilot project had a less positive impact on schools’ ability to engage and work with parents and communities. While some initiatives were successful, two secondary schools made little progress in terms of working with parents. However, some promising joint ventures between secondary schools and their feeder primaries have succeeded in engaging parents in family learning activities, and this may be an important first step for secondary schools.

Some of the earliest outputs of the project were in the form of OoSHL and study support opportunities for pupils. Of course, these are some of the easier elements of Schools Plus to implement. But, significantly, the new provision was not simply ‘more of the same’; the activities developed as part of the SPT pilot were almost exclusively new ideas, delivered in different ways, often by different partners and sometimes in different locations.

It is arguable that the project’s most significant legacy does not lie in the specific activities developed to date, but in the changed attitudes of staff, which will enable further such developments in the future. The fact that the project has opened the eyes of key members of staff in every participating school to “the bigger picture” in terms of potential local partners and new ways of working is likely to have some effect on the way that each of these schools develops in years to come.

Taking the work forward in schools

In four of the schools, local teams of key partners (including school staff as well as external agencies) were convened to oversee and support the project. For these four schools, all of which had an interest in and commitment to developing a Schools Plus programme, but no clear vision or sense of direction, such locally-based teams proved to be extremely helpful, both in generating new ideas, identifying suitable partners and funding streams, and in being able to support specific activities. In the other two schools no team as such was evident, beyond a close partnership between the team leader and key school contacts.

As the project progressed, a common feature across all the six schools was a move towards delegating Schools Plus (and similar) developments to a dedicated post-holder. This was not necessarily a full-time post, and in some cases the worker was shared by a group of schools.

Resources and funding

Accessing some additional funding was an important element in enabling further developments to take place, particularly if a need was perceived for additional staffing to take the work forward. For many schools successful networking and contacts made during the pilot year resulted in new funding opportunities. However, none of the schools in the sample had the necessary capacity or experience to fundraise on a large scale without assistance, either from the team leader, the LEA, or a partner organisation. This is clearly an area where schools will continue to need support.

Another problem relating to funding is that of a fundamental incompatibility between accounting practices and ‘joined-up working’. Schools attempting to integrate different strands of activity and to use existing and new funding sources creatively encountered a number of obstacles, for example when they had to disentangle complex financial arrangements in order to demonstrate accountability to multiple funders. Conversely, those schools with a less integrated approach to their Schools Plus activities were impeded in the development of a more coherent vision by budgetary conventions that conspired to keep different activities and funding streams financially and conceptually separate.

An integrated Schools Plus vision

It is important that Schools Plus is not regarded as a discrete ‘project’ in isolation from either the core activities of the school or other local initiatives. Ideally this vision should be framed within the context of a long-term commitment to the community. It is notable that where the project has been most successfully implemented, a specific focus or theme (for example the arts, sport or pupil achievement) unifies the Schools Plus programme.

Additional Information

Copies of the full report (RR447) - priced £4.95 - are available by writing to DfES Publications, PO Box 5050, Sherwood Park, Annesley, Nottingham NG15 0DJ.

Cheques should be made payable to “DfES Priced Publications”.

Copies of this Research Brief (RB447) are available free of charge from the above address (tel: 0845 60 222 60). Research Briefs and Research Reports can also be accessed at

Further information about this research can be obtained from Michele Weatherburn, AS:Schools Division, DfES, Level 6S, SanctuaryBuildings, Great Smith Street, LondonSW1P 3BT.

Email:

The views expressed in this report are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department for Education and Skills

[1]DfEE (2000) Schools Plus: Building learning communities. Improving the educational changes of children and people from disadvantaged areas. Policy Action Team 11. (London, DfEE)